Oštrić - Persecution and Banning

Over on History, in that thread about the Black boxer in Nazi Germany, I actually shared a little thought regarding Jesse Owens.

It went something like this:

Just a tiny bit of trivia that really gets to the heart of the topic. I suppose it's worth noting that while Hitler didn't shake hands with Jesse Owens—just as he didn't shake hands with any of the other medal winners that day—he did acknowledge everyone with a Sieg Heil, including Jesse Owens.

In contrast to Hitler, who at least offered a greeting, Roosevelt never actually congratulated him, greeted him, sent a telegram, or showed any kind of recognition toward Jesse Owens, which I think really hurt him deeply.
Quote:

“Hitler didn’t snub me—it was our president who snubbed me,” he said months after the Olympics. “The president didn’t even send me a telegram.” When you look at racism, I guess the land of the free and the brave was actually more backwards than Hitler's Germany.

Well, my post was deleted and I ended up with a 50-point penalty, with the explanation being that claiming Roosevelt was a bigger racist than Hitler constitutes "trolling."

First off—racism in the USA and how Americans treated Jesse Owens is incredibly well-documented; I mean, you could find a million articles on the subject all over the internet.

For instance:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/ra...d-jesse-owens/

Secondly, it seems like lonetrucker4 clearly just can't pick up on sarcasm.

Thirdly, I get the feeling this guy might have some pretty deep-seated biases against me.

I know you're just a classic troll and provocateur. I assume you aren't actually a supporter of Nazism, otherwise you would have come out much stronger.

Honestly, what on earth? My post wasn't provocative, it wasn't off-topic, it wasn't offensive, and there wasn't anything incorrect or improper about it at all.

And I get hit with 50 points for that?

It feels just like last time, when I got slapped with a "trolling" penalty and a ban, only to have my post pulled out and turned into its own separate thread. It's just baffling.

To me, this looks like nothing more than simple harassment and retaliation, purely because I don't see eye-to-eye with lonetrucker4 on the issue of global warming.

I'm kindly asking someone in charge—anyone who isn't lonetrucker4—to please review this penalty and the points I've been docked.

Kenneth Cruz67, look, if I actually thought you were some hardcore Nazi sympathizer, you’d be getting hit with a ten times heavier ban.

But honestly? You're just a basic troll—one of those typical agitators looking for a fight. So, you get 50 points off. Just because you keep doing this despite the warnings.

Roosevelt being more racist than Hitler? Seriously? Just because Hitler greeted Owens with "Sieg Heil!" while Roosevelt didn't send him a congratulatory telegram?

There is absolutely nothing to debate here.

lonetrucker4 said:Kenneth Cruz67, look, if I actually believed you were a genuine Nazi sympathizer, you’d be looking at a penalty ten times larger than this one.

But I suspect you might just be a rather mundane troll—you know, that typical provocateur who just wants to stir up a fight. So, I'll settle on just 50 points, mostly because you keep doing this despite the previous warnings.

But good grief, who on earth was I even trying to provoke or troll? If we were discussing some contentious topic where I was intentionally trying to needle someone, then sure, I might see your point, but there wasn't any provocation or fighting here, nor did I ever take a side in anything.

I guess I don't quite see what's so provocative about it? It is a notorious fact that Americans in the 40s were racists and practiced segregation. Even within the military during WWII, they had segregated Black and white units. Segregation wasn't even abolished until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is stating that somehow provocative? And who could possibly be offended by it? Honestly, it's just a well-known historical fact.

Is Roosevelt a bigger racist than Hitler? Just because Hitler greeted Owens with "Sieg Heil!" while Roosevelt didn't send him a congratulatory telegram?

There really isn't much to debate there.

I never actually said Roosevelt was a bigger racist than Hitler; I wasn't comparing them at all. I was simply being ironic regarding the whole "land of the free and home of the brave" idea. I was merely drawing a comparison between America and Germany.

Besides, I suppose you can't really be more or less of a racist; you either are one or you aren't. 😵

It feels quite terrible to me that I'm losing 50 points over a single historical tidbit just because you're seeing something that isn't even there—all this talk of trolling and provocation.

The thing is, I think you've decided by default that I'm a troll and a provocateur, so now you're searching for and finding evidence to support that in every single post I make, whether it's actually there or not.

So, I would truly like to ask the moderators to please review this penalty.

I would really like to ask the moderators to either strip away these 50 points, since they honestly feel like such utter nonsense, or just go ahead and permaban me entirely. I mean, this whole situation just doesn't make any sense at all, and I simply can't stand the idea of someone just picking on me for no reason whatsoever.

lonetrucker4 said:Kenneth Cruz67, look, if I actually believed you were some kind of Nazi sympathizer, you’d have received a ban ten times larger than this one.

But honestly, I suspect you’re just a mediocre troll—you know, that typical provocateur who just wants to stir up a fight.

So, by your standards as a history moderator, presenting an undeniable historical fact counts as trolling?
And on top of that, it’s a violation worthy of a strike?

Is Roosevelt more of a racist than Hitler?

The forum user didn't say anything like that, nor did they even imply it.

There really isn't much to debate here.

lonetrucker4, you've cultivated such a toxic atmosphere here in History (and the other mods aren't helping on other threads either) that more and more high-quality contributors simply don't bother visiting these subforums anymore, let alone posting anything.

I haven't even stepped foot in the History section for quite a while now.
And lately, I find myself putting less and less effort into writing long, thoughtful posts anywhere.

If I never know whether I’m going to get struck or banned for something that doesn't even break the law or the forum rules, what's the point of writing anything at all?

As Anderlon has pointed out several times, far more people come to the forum to read than to write. Probably ten, maybe even twenty times more.

But people don't show up to read mindless drivel or insulting ad hominem attacks against those with different views (which the mods too often, and far too obviously, permit for their favorites).

People come to read interesting posts and discussions they can't find elsewhere; they come to see a different perspective—even journalists sometimes transcribe or draw inspiration from forum comments.
By driving away the quality contributors, you guys are basically shooting yourselves in the foot.

Pretty soon, you'll have the History forum all to yourself—you'll be the only one writing, and almost no one will be left to read what you have to say.

Good luck with that...

Timothy Nelson5 said:So, according to your standards as a history moderator, stating an undeniable historical fact counts as trolling?
Plus, I guess that also qualifies as a reason to get banned?

The user didn't even imply anything of the sort.

lonetrucker4, I feel like you've made the History section so toxic—and honestly, other mods have too on different topics—that most of the high-quality posters just don't bother showing up to these subforums anymore, let alone actually contributing something.

Personally, I haven't really visited the History section in quite a while.
And lately, I find myself putting less effort into writing long, thoughtful posts anywhere, I suppose...

👍

It probably would be a good idea to have more moderators in the History section, maybe at least three of them.

Timothy Nelson5 said:lonetrucker4, you’ve turned the History boards into such a toxic wasteland—and honestly, the other mods aren't helping either—that the smart people are just checking out. They can't even be bothered to show up, let alone actually contribute anything worth reading.

I don't know about the other subreddits, but over in History, that whole petition campaign from the last few months has definitely kicked things up a notch. Activity is finally spiking.

Some people have stopped posting entirely, others can't even find the door because they got hit with a partial or total permaban. Honestly? I don't think we lost anything in terms of quality. We just lost the folks who couldn't—or wouldn't—meet the bar. Most of them were just cut from the same ideological cloth anyway.

Things are getting interesting around here. As a mod, I don't just throw out bans and cards for fun.

So, some younger guy on here started a thread about Jimmy Ligett, that boxer and coach who was hanging around the US back in the early 30s. Word on the street is he coached the boxing team for Nazi Germany—though I say "word on the street" because there’s zero actual proof out there. First, I tried linking this to that old "USA in WWII" discussion since Ligett popped up there a decade ago, but then I figured I'd just spin it into its own thing. I did some digging online and put together a longer post. Apparently, there's even a movie coming out about him. But honestly? Real primary sources about what he actually did during the Nazi Germany era are nowhere to be found. I'm just throwing this out there in hopes someone actually does the heavy lifting, hits up the archives, and finds some real evidence.

Look, this History subforum is basically just here so we can help each other actually learn something and stop being clueless about the past. It’s about pushing one another to get smarter, plain and simple.

That random jab about Hitler and Owens and Roosevelt adds zero value to the conversation. It’s just classic trolling.

If someone tries to claim that Nazi Germany wasn't a racist state just because he was Black, they're being delusional. At that point, you're either an idiot or just trolling for attention, because we all know the truth—they straight-up ripped their racial laws right out of Germany's playbook.

Then again, you've got people out there acting like they need to prove "Americans aren't racists." There’s no penalty box for that kind of nonsense, but I tell folks in my DMs that playing defense like that is just a sucker's game—you've already lost before you even open your mouth. Obviously, making a sweeping claim like that isn't exactly accurate either.

People don't show up here to read one-track minds and cheap insults thrown at anyone who disagrees.

It’s usually not even about some "ad hominem" logical fallacy or cheap debating trick. It’s just calling people like they are based on what they actually write.

People flock here to find the good stuff—the deep dives and debates you just won't find anywhere else.

Honestly, having decent mods is what keeps these threads actually worth reading. Without them, it’s just a dumpster fire of spammers, trolls, losers throwing tantrums, and propaganda hacks drowning everything out. Then you've got dozens of other sites where people post about that Jasenovac myth every single day—which, by the way, is the reason I get flagged more than anyone else on the mod team.

At this rate, you'll have the whole History forum to yourself—just you, posting into the void while basically nobody bothers to read it.

I haven't seen any signs of that in the three years I've been moderating.

lonetrucker4 said:I can't speak for the other subforums, really, but looking at History... I guess that whole petition campaign from the last few months has actually managed to stir things up a bit. Activity's definitely seeing an uptick there, maybe.

Some people just don't want to write anymore. Others... well, they can't, I suppose, because of those partial or total permanent bans. As for the quality of the discourse? I don't think we've actually lost anything. It’s really just a matter of certain users being unable—or perhaps unwilling—to meet the standards here. Most of them seem to share the same ideological bent anyway.

There are some pretty interesting discussions happening lately. As a moderator, I don't just go around handing out bans and red cards, you know? I try to do more than that.

So, there’s this younger guy on the forum who started a whole separate thread about Jimmy Ligett—that boxer and coach who was living in a major US city back in the early 1930s. Word is, he served as a trainer and selector for the boxing team during the era of Nazi Germany, though I say "word is" because, frankly, primary sources on the matter are nonexistent. Initially, I just lumped this under that older, broader discussion regarding the US during World War II, since Ligett had popped up in those circles about ten years ago. But eventually, I decided to pull it out into its own dedicated topic. I spent some time digging through the internet to try and piece together more details for a longer post. Apparently, there’s even a movie in the works about him. The thing is, actual, verifiable evidence regarding his activities during the Nazi Germany period is conspicuously missing. It’s just... not there. I guess I’m hoping that by putting this out there, someone might actually feel compelled to dig deeper—maybe head into the archives or track down some real, raw historical material. Maybe.

The History subforum exists for one reason: so we can help each other actually grasp what happened in the past. It’s meant to be a space where we push one another to sharpen our understanding and keep digging deeper into the facts. I guess that's the idea, anyway.

That random tangent about Owens, Hitler, and Roosevelt doesn't really add anything to the actual discussion here. It feels like typical trolling, I guess.

If someone tries to claim that Nazi Germany wasn't a racist state just because he was Black, I guess they're either being incredibly dense or they’re just trolling at this point. It feels like pure provocation, honestly. We already know the facts: they adopted those same segregationist laws straight from Germany. It's pretty straightforward, really.

You don't need to justify yourself to me, and you certainly don't need to try and push me back. I have no intention of retreating into the past.
I’m only posting this because I got a notification about it, mostly because I just don't have the energy to get into another heated argument with you over that other toxic mess—you know, the whole Greta situation. Honestly, I already caught a ban over there for a post I actually would’ve been proud to see printed in the New York Times. And the moderator? Well, they did their usual thing, banning me and then scrubbing the post entirely so nobody can see the kind of stuff that actually gets people kicked off a forum like this.
Don't get me wrong, I’d probably love to jump into the fray over there too, but... honestly? When I never know if I'm going to end up getting banned and having my posts wiped clean... I guess I just won't bother writing.
And I'm surely not the only one who feels that way.

I mean, I guess you have to admit that having decent moderation is really what keeps these discussions from turning into a total circus. Without it, the whole thing would just be swallowed up by spammers, trolls, people hurling insults, the hysterics, and those propaganda machines... it would just drown out any actual conversation. It’s the only thing keeping the noise at bay, I suppose.

Just... don't make me laugh, please. I really can't deal with that right now.

It seems like cancel culture is really picking up steam lately, hitting just about every topic you can think of. It’s everywhere, I guess.
Sometimes, I feel like certain mods actually turn a blind eye to—or even worse, practically encourage—the whole verbal lynching thing online. It’s basically digital trampling on anyone who dares to hold a different opinion. And if people actually decide to push back? Well, they just end up getting banned. I guess that's just how the power dynamic works these days.

So, I actually stepped away from this forum for nearly two months or so about a year ago. Between that whole fake pandemic nonsense and just having basically zero social life left... well, here I am. I've come back. I suppose a lot of others are probably hanging around here for the exact same reasons. I guess this place has been lucky that no real competition has popped up to challenge us, though I wonder how things would even function if they had. And honestly, I can't help but wonder what the traffic is going to look like once this fake epidemic finally blows over.

John Palmer9 said:👍

We seriously need more mods over in the History sub-forum—like, at least three of them.

There’s absolutely no question about it.
History is a massive, complicated beast of a section.
Anyone who actually spends their time digging through archives, reading up, and obsessing over historical facts has this deep, almost spiritual connection to the subject—it’s basically half hard science and half trying to make sense of the absolute chaos of the universe.
Sure, you need standards to keep things professional, but the whole point of a forum is to have these free-flowing, open debates about the controversial stuff.
At least, that’s how I thought it worked, until lonetrucker4 took over.
He’s tightened the reins way too much—just suffocating everything. People are losing the will to even participate, and if things keep going this way, everyone’s just going to end up talking to themselves in an empty room...
And honestly? I really don't want to see that happen.

That’s why having three moderators in History is a necessity. It would help kill off that gatekeeping and totalitarian vibe, which is hands down the worst enemy of what this forum is supposed to be about.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, I haven't seen any signs of that in the three years I've been acting as a moderator.

Oh, come on, lonetrucker4...
It's just that you're choosing to look the other way.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Back on the History forum, in that thread about the Black boxer in Nazi Germany, I posted something about Jesse Owens.

The post went like this:

My post got nuked and I slapped with 50 penalty points—all because they claimed my suggestion that Roosevelt was a bigger racist than Hitler was "trolling."

First off—racism in the USA and how Americans treated Jesse Owens is extremely well-documented; you can find a million articles on it all over the web.

For example:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/ra...d-jesse-owens/

Second—lonetrucker4 clearly doesn't get sarcasm.

Third—this guy obviously has some deep-seated biases.

Honestly, wtf? The post wasn't provocative, it wasn't off-topic, it wasn't offensive, and there wasn't anything incorrect or inappropriate in it.

And I get hit with 50 points for that?

It’s just like last time—he slapped me with a trolling warning, banned me, and then actually pulled my post into its own separate thread. Seriously, wtf.

This is nothing more than basic harassment and a vendetta just because I don't agree with lonetrucker4 regarding global warming.

Can someone in charge—anyone who isn't lonetrucker4—please review this penalty and the points?

Your post is factually accurate and interesting because you're bringing up info that not everyone knows (not even me, and I'm a history professor). Plus, I don't see any attempt on your part to justify racism, Nazism, or their crimes. Comparing racism across different countries is an interesting topic that should actually be encouraged—and that goes for antisemitism too, among other things. Maybe if you had "trolled" by lying about how certain historical events were orchestrated for plunder, you wouldn't have gotten flagged.

John Palmer9 said:👍

We definitely need more moderators on the History subforum—at least three.

Totally agree. And we need mods who actually focus on stopping insults rather than trying to police everyone else's opinions or pushing their own political agendas.

Timothy Nelson5 said:You don't need to justify yourself or snub me to keep me from coming back, because there's no way I'm ever going back to History.

Snub? Love that old-school word. 👍

Anyone’s welcome in the History sub, as long as they can follow the general forum rules and the specific sub-rules. Plus, one big rule for this thread: we don't deny the victims of fascism, period (that includes the Ustaše and especially the Jasenovac myth).

The thing is, I just didn't feel like getting into another toxic debate with you—specifically the one about Greta. I already got banned over there for a post I’d be proud to see in a major newspaper.

Newsflash: newspapers have editors. Their job overlaps a bit with being a moderator, but they have more power and different goals. Having been a journalist and an editor myself, I know how it works.

If you ask me, the topic isn't toxic at all. We're talking about an activist—a wildly successful one, granted—who fights for causes supported by millions of people worldwide: activists, scientists, politicians, business leaders, and regular folks.

In that thread, you started diving into conspiracy theories (asking if climatologists even dare to disagree with the world dogma) and brought up that one specific study (Henrik Svensmark's theory). I gave you a detailed response to that, explaining that Svensmark publishes his work normally and doesn't even claim it disproves man-made global warming. Those are just facts—you can pout and be stubborn if you want. But pushing those kinds of pseudo-theories is what's actually "toxic," by your own definition.

Jonathan Wright2 said:So anyone digging through history gets this weird connection to a passion that’s half science and half just chasing cosmic nonsense.

All five points matter, but if you claim something is a passion, you gotta learn the basic "rules of the game." You struggled even with something as simple as an "accurate quote." When I called you out, you just dug your heels in and kept messing up, acting like you had the right to "get creative" with quotes. Then you got banned, then complained about it over and over... It's like being stubborn about the most basic rule of using sources. It's like insisting you should be allowed to grab the ball with your hands in a soccer match.

Plus, besides research rules, there are just basic communication rules so you don't leave readers spinning. Like when you stubbornly insisted Draža Mihailović named his unit wrong—writing "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Homeland" instead of "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland." Now any reader stumbling on that term is just confused about who you actually are.

There are standards used to measure expertise, but a forum is great because it allows for freer, more open debates on controversial topics.

It's different from academic publishing, where everything has to pass peer review before it even sees the light of day. There's way less freedom there than in journalism or just generally on the Internet, where you can post pretty much anything.

At least I think that was the case until lonetrucker4 took over.

The rules have been around since 2011, and I became a moderator at the end of 2017. Maybe I'm just more persistent and consistent about applying them. For me, history is a passion, and I only moderate this specific sub-forum. Probably also because I'm retired now so I actually have the time, though forum talk and moderating isn't my whole life.

So it would definitely be a good idea for the History section to have three moderators.

I'm fine with that. But there weren't any candidates. Some people actually think moderating is a paid gig—someone even told me I was "getting a cushy job" 😁 ).

Christian Myers said:Maybe you should've just trolled and lied about how Vukovar was handled or how the war was basically a setup for looting, then you wouldn't have gotten banned.

And you really think those are lies? People argue about this stuff constantly, and nobody gets booted just for having an opinion. You get the hammer if you're being offensive, if you're a broken record, or if you're doubling down on blatant, objective falsehoods.

When it comes to threads about the American War of Independence, I’m way more lenient than when we talk about ancient history. It’s all still pretty fresh, archives aren't wide open yet, and there’s no "historical distance" to lean on. I haven't handed out bans to people just because they're pushing theories I don't buy.

I’m also more chill with things like medieval American history since sources are thin; you can defend all sorts of theories there, even if some seem totally unlikely.

Same goes for population genetics discussions—that field is still evolving. People jump to conclusions all the time, but I usually let it slide unless someone starts acting like they're God's gift to science. I even started a separate thread for "what are your DNA results and where did you test," which technically isn't "History," but since it ties into genetic interest, it fits here. That thread is working out great.

lonetrucker4 said:Snub? I actually kind of like that word. It feels old-school, doesn't it? A bit sophisticated, maybe even a little dramatic. I guess there's something to be said for using language like that. 👍

It feels like everyone’s just trying to suck up to me lately... I don't know. Maybe it's just my imagination, or maybe things are shifting. It's getting a bit much, I guess.

Everyone’s welcome here in the History subforum. I suppose.

Besides that little slice of historical truth you just tossed around like it was nothing? I don't know. Maybe there's more to it than what you're presenting. I guess.

I honestly find myself wondering who is actually capable of sticking to the general forum guidelines and the specific rules of the subforums. It’s a question, I guess. And then there's the rule regarding this specific thread: there is absolutely no denying the victims of fascism, period. That includes the Ustaše and specifically the Jasenovac myth. Just being honest about that.

Well, I guess people have finally woken up to it.
Some topics... they just don't add up. It’s like staring at 2+2 and being told the answer is 5. I guess some things are just broken from the start.
Either you accept the new jargon and this freshly cooked version of history, or you don't. There isn't really much room for debate on that. People just head over to the forums where they're actually allowed to talk.

Newsflash: the daily papers actually have them. editorsI suppose their role overlaps somewhat with what a moderator does, though they carry more authority and tend to aim for different objectives. Maybe.

Oh, come on... don't go there.
I got banned a few days ago, just before Raspudić put out that similar—though much more aggressive—piece titled "Gretenism." Since you’re a mod, you can probably still see my deleted post if you look.

If you ask me, this whole thing isn't even remotely toxic. We’re just talking about an activist—granted, one who’s been incredibly successful...

Well... alright then. I suppose we'll see where this goes.
I can’t quite wrap my head around it... the word 'mascot' keeps drifting through my mind. It's like she’s this untouchable figure where if you dare to offer even a shred of criticism, suddenly you're the villain in some twisted narrative. And then there's the business side of things—it turns out the whole operation is run by her mother's partner. I guess that explains a lot, maybe.
But those are taboo subjects now... everyone starts shouting if you even breathe in their direction. I guess it's just how things work lately.

I mean, I guess you're starting to drift into conspiracy theory territory with this discussion.

Yeah, sure, conspiracy theories... what else could it be? Flat Earth, chemtrails, little green men, Svensmark... that's basically the whole starter pack.

I wonder... are climatologists even allowed to voice an opinion that deviates from the Great World Dogma these days? It feels like you can't breathe without stepping on a landmine. I was thinking about that specific research—you know, the theory by Henrik Svensmark—and how that kind of thing just gets brushed aside now. Maybe they're afraid, or maybe the gatekeepers just won't have it. I guess it’s hard to find any real breathing room for dissent anymore.

So, you're looking for funding for that study on beavers in the Black Hills forest? I mean, sure, maybe you can pull it off. But you’ll probably have to toss in a paragraph about global warming. You know how it goes... you just write what they want to hear to get the check.
So, they’re asking for funding to study butterflies in Madagascar now? Just another segment of the whole global warming narrative, I suppose.
Exploring asteroid belts? Water on the Moon? Mars Aurora? Yeah, sure, just another mandatory segment designed to smear Henrik Svensmark's work...

Got a picture?
Well, you know how this intellectual prostitution works...

I already gave you a detailed answer on that. I explained that Svensmark publishes his papers through the proper channels and he isn't even claiming they single-handedly debunk man-made global warming. Those are just the facts—you can sulk and be stubborn if you want. But according to you, championing these "pseudo-theories" is somehow "toxic."

Svensmark’s theory is scientifically grounded, unlike those countless hypotheses about tropospheric processes accelerating global warming that all collapsed like a house of cards.
And honestly, that article just reinforces my point—some hack journalist is twisting the significance of the research and misinterpreting it completely. It feels like the scientists being quoted were practically commissioned to create smoke and mirrors; they haven't actually proven or disproven anything with their own research. They're just offering opinions (or maybe just commentary in a paid scientific paper?)
If Svensmark isn't onto something, then why is CERN forbidden from working on it?

lonetrucker4 said:That random remark about Owens, Hitler, and Roosevelt doesn't really add anything to the conversation on this topic. It just looks like typical trolling.

Now, lonetrucker4, I suppose trolling would actually be if I were going completely off-topic, or if I were trying to stir up trouble just to make people fight, or if I were intentionally veering the discussion toward some entirely different subject altogether.

I truly believe my post was perfectly benign and wasn't meant to be argumentative, provocative, or anything of that nature whatsoever.

So, I'll say it one more time—either you can take those 50 points away from me, or you might as well just issue a permanent ban on my account.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Words like 'mascot'... 'this girl who if you criticize her you're some kind of villain'... and apparently it's a whole business run by her mom's partner...
but those are taboo topics, hush hush.

Look, we’re drifting off track here. I don't moderate the Politics board, and this subforum isn't meant for dragging debates over from other sections. But fine, I'll give you my two cents one more time.

That line is just low—purely biased data manipulation, total fiction, just making stuff up on the fly (you probably picked that up from some other site without actually checking the facts).

Sure, you can call her a "mascot"—though honestly, that's pretty inaccurate because mascots don't give speeches like she does.

Go ahead and criticize her, obviously, but try not to be so shallow about it.

And who exactly is this "mom's partner"? That guy is her husband and Greta's father. Using that kind of rhetoric is just malicious mudslinging.

What "business" is he running? He’s an actor and producer, and his wife is a singer (an opera soloist, but also pop). They both just have their own careers, it's not a "business." Since his wife (Malte Ernman) is famous, more successful in her field, and earned more, he voluntarily took on more of the childcare; it might seem weird to some people here, but it's totally normal in Sweden. When Greta was dealing with severe mental health issues, they both went all out to help her, and they succeeded. They even wrote about it in their book back in 2018.

Looking for funding for a study on beavers in the Yellow Woods? Sure, but you gotta include a section on global warming.

And that’s what you call "some guy said"? I actually happened to be writing about the reintroduction of beavers in the Yellow Woods area back in the late '90s (I was a journalist back then—an activist too, though I didn't push that specific topic; I was the founder and secretary of the environmental journalists assembly, working alongside the American Forestry Association). (I've written about the Lonjsko plains in general plenty of times, too.) That project was all about biodiversity, which has nothing to do with climate change except indirectly.

Take this article, for example, Beavers in America on the sumazutica.com site. Not a single mention of climate change.

That’s the difference between writing about something you actually know something about (I don't know everything about beavers, but I talked to the experts at the time) while sticking to the facts—versus just talking nonsense based on preconceived biases.

I think that matters for any decent discussion, even if people aren't always held to the same standard.

I'm not going to repeat my take on Svensmark's work. I already said everything that needs saying.

lonetrucker4, I feel like you've completely hijacked this thread, derailing the whole conversation into a battlefield for arguing with anyone who disagrees with you, even dragging Greta into the mix and whatnot. Despite my requests for someone else to address this grievance besides yourself

I am asking one of the authorities who isn't lonetrucker4

to please step in, because what you're doing just isn't fair or right.

This is an official appeal against the warning card.

Either rescind the warning or just go ahead and permanent-ban me. If I really am the kind of troll you seem to think I am, then I honestly have no business being on this forum. And it works both ways, really; I have zero interest in participating in a community where moderators vent their frustrations and engage in personal vendettas.

It’s really just a matter of principle, and frankly, those massive 50 points you handed out didn't even get me close to a one-day ban.

History is my life
History.com is basically my homepage
I’m reading up on history every single day
Honestly, history makes up about a third of my actual job

And look, I’ve officially asked to be banned from this sub because of Smith

Once you guys get rid of him, I'll be back
It won't be some massive blow to the site's traffic 😁 since I don't really have the time to write long-winded essays anyway
I'm just adding my name to the long list of forum users who feel sidelined, harassed, and persecuted—not necessarily by Smith himself, but by that whole leftist mindset running the show